are not so much beholding to him but the present Clergy are as little to whom he has by very broad signs and intimations applied Theophylact's observation upon the Text That our Lord complained the Labourers were but few because the Scribes and Pharisees the present Labourers not onely did not profit but did hurt the people whereas it is the property of a good Pastor to be merciful-towards them He knew very well this Objection oâ— the paucity of Labourers could not well be applied to us who have such a numerous Clergy and therefore to make room for Dissenters he fairly insinuates that the present Ministers do no good but hurt Such an impudent Calumny as needs no confutation and let others consider what censure it deserves IV. His next Argument is taken from our Saviour's command not to scandalize or despise little ones 18 Mat. where by little ones he understands those who are weak in the Faith or not well instructed in their Duty or mistaken in it though very obstinate and peremptory in their mistake for so he must mean if he will apply it to the case of Dissenters And by scandalizing offending or despising them he understands doing any action which occasions their ruine And thus he tâ—inks Church-Governours fall under this Woe which is denounced against those who offend these little ones when they impose such Ceremonies which they cannot and will not submit to which occasions the Schism and consequently the damnation of their weak Brother No man can possibly want Arguments who has such an admirable faculty not at finding but making them for nothing can be more remote from our Saviour's intention in these words than such an inference as this For 1. It is evident that by little ones our Saviour understands those who are meek and humble and modest who are as void of pride and passion and earthly ambitions as a little Child as is evident both from the occasion of this discourse which was to correct the ambition of his Disciples and from the example of a little Child which he proposes to them for their imitation Thus St. Chrysostom and St. Ierom expound the words though the latter observes also that those who are scandalized are upon that account also little ones for great and strong Christians will not receive scandal That is though they be humble and modest c. yet these Graces and Vertues are not so well rooted and confirmed in them but that the ill usage they meet with from the world may turn them out of their byass and occasion their fall But what is this to our Dissenters who are neither in one sence nor other little ones who neither have the modesty humility and peaceableness of Children nor their soft and ductile nature but are stiff and inflexible and obstinate in their conceits that they will neither hearken to Reason nor yield to Conviction 2. To scandalize or offend these little ones St. Chrysostom tells us is to dishonour to reproach to vilifie them to despise them as it is expressed v. 10. which as he observes is a great temptation and scandal to men of weak minds Our Reconciler observes that St. Ierom says We are said to scandalize when by our actions we give occasion to their ruine I find no such saying in St. Ierom upon the place but however the saying is a very good one if we apply it right to actions of contempt and scorn of which both St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom speak which are apt to spoil this good temper of mind when men see themselves onely scorned and derided for it and exposed to all sorts of violence and injury This is the usual reward of great modesty and humility in this World and therefore our Saviour secures these little ones from contempâ— by denouncing severe woes against those who offer it But what is all this to the Church which offers no contempt to the meanest Christian much less to men of humble and modest and peaceable tempers She is as much concerned for the salvation of the Poor as of the Rich and despises no man who has a soul to be saved and will submit to wise instructions Must the Church be charged with scandalizing little ones because she will not renounce her own Authority nor suffer these little ones to give Laws to her Certainly our Saviour never intended any such thing when in this very Chapter and upon this very occasion he asserts the Authority of the Church even in the point of scandal and commands us not to converse with those men who will not hearken to her Counsels and Reproofs If thy brother shall trespass against thee shall offend and scandalize thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thâ—u hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven But of the case of scandal or giving offence our Reconciler has given us occasion to discourse more in another place V. His next Argument is as wise as the rest He tells us Our Lord denounceth woe against the Scribes and Pharisees because they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men But he should have added the whole verse for ye neither go in your selves neither suffer ye them that are entring to go in St. Ierom expounds this two ways 1. They shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men by hindring their belief in Christ in whom they would neither believe themselves nor suffer others to believe who were prepared and disposed for it which is certainly the true exposition of the words But then he adds 2. That these Teachers and Rabbies may be said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven who scandalize their Disciples with their wicked lives that is who tempt them to sin by their example But what is this to the Dispute about Ceremonies Does the imposition of Ceremonies in its own nature shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven Can none be saved then who obey the Laws of the Church about Rituals and Ceremonies as no man could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who followed the directions of the Scribes and Pharisees Christ condemns the Pharisees for using their utmost endeavour to hinder men from embracing the Christian Faith and entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Our Reconciler draws up the same charge against the Church because some men take unjust offence against the Order and Decency of her Worship and will not enter though she uses all manner of Entreaties and Arguments and wise Arts to perswade them to enter
the Lord and bow my self before the high God shall I come before him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oyl shall I give my first-born for my transgression the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God Now because God prefers true and real goodness before the externals of Religion does it hence follow that there must be no external Worship or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them Just as much as that God did not require them to offer Sacrifice because he preferred Mercy before it Our Reconciler obsâ—rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying 1. To justifie his Disciples who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields and rubbed them in their hands and eat them on the Sabbath-day which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest as being a servile work and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point but justifies what they did by their present necessity and by this Rule I will have mercy and not sacrifice That God who prefers acts of Kindness and Mercy before Sacrifice when they come in competition with each other is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this and our Church does so as I have already observed but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremonies or repeal them if men won't obey them I do not understand The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners which he tells them was onely in order to reform them as a Physician converses with the sick and certainly it was lawful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sinners in order to make them good men than with our abstaining from their company though a familiar conversation with them upon other accounts be scandalous And how this proves what our Reconciler would conclude from it I cannot see Well but this is a general Rule which may be applied to more cases than one or two Right But if we will argue from our Saviour's authority and application we must apply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it otherwise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour but the reason of the thing and let him set aside our Saviour's authority and we shall deal well enough with his Reason All that can be made of this Rule is this That where there happens any such case that there is a temporary competition between two Duties which are both acknowledged to be our duty there the greatest and most necessary duty must take place and particularly that all Rituals must give place to Mercy So that to make this a parallel case our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship what is the other Duty then to which this must give way To the care of mens Souls says our Reconciler No say I there is no inconsistency between the care of mens Souls and the care of publick Worship which is the best way of taking care of mens Souls and therefore there can never be a competition between these two O but some men are ignorant and scrupulous and wilful and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship they will dissent from them and turn Schismaticks and be damned and thus accidentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils Let him prove then if he can from these words of our Saviour that the Governours of the Church must never do their duty for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs Such cases as these if they be truly pitiable must be left to the mercy of God but the Church can take no cognizance of them especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship and renouncing her own just Authority the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be I shall onely farther observe his great civility to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member For his third Observation from these words is That they were used by the Prophet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Israelites in the observance and the requiring these Rituals whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts there being no truth no mercy nor knowledge of God in the land but killing committing adultery stealing lying and swearing falsly c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews at that time to be zealous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation he thetorically introduces it with a God forbid Now God forbid that I should say that it is thus in England but he is pleased to put men in mind of it if they please to think so This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks because our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Religion took more care to decry this Pharisaical Hypocrisie of an external Religion and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness than at this day who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices nor think any man a Saint because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil We leave this good Reconciler to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters who can strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel who cannot see a Surplice without horror but can dispence with Lying and Perjury with Slanders and Revilings and speaking
and Unity in the Christian Church for they may entertain and multiply such Disputes for ever with the same reason that they do now And therefore there is always reason to suppress those Scruples which câ—nnot be cured or outworn by time when Indulgence will not cure the Disease nor time remove it it must be stifled and suppressed by Ecclesiastical Authority Whether our Reconciler will think this a sufficient Answer to his fourth Chapter I cannot tell I am sure I do CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler or his Arguments taken from St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians HAving in the former Chapter so particularly answered our Reconciler's Arguments taken as he pretends from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other in that great Dispute about the observation of the Law of Moses there seems little occasion to answer the rest of his Arguments from Scripture which every ordinary Reader may do from the Principles already laid down But that our Reconciler may not complain that he is not answered I am willing to undergo the trouble of a needless Answer if my Readers will be pleased to pardon it His first Argument is from St. Paul's discourse 1 Cor. 6. Where he condemneth the Corinthians because they went to law before the heathens which was a blemish to the Christian Faith and ministred scandal to the heathens and made them apt to think that Christians were covetous contentious and prone to injure one another c. Since therefore our Contentions about these lesser matters do minister far greater Scandal to the Atheist the Sceptick c. our Governours should rather suffer themselves to be restrained a little and even injured in the exercise of their just Power about things unnecessary than by their stiffness to assert and to exert it to continue to give occasion to so great a Scandal to the Christian Faith This is an admirable Argument if it be well considered The Christians must not go to law before Heathen Judges therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship Yes you will say the Argument is good because the reason is the same to avoid Scandal Let us then suppose this was the reason if we will make these two cases parallel it must be thus To go to law with our Christian Brethren is scandalous and therefore must be avoided to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion is scandalous and therefore Church-Governours must not exercise this Authority Will our Reconciler now stand to this Proposition No that he durst not affirm that the exercise of a just Authority in these matters is scandalous but the contentions about such Rites and Ceremonies are scandalous and therefore Governours must not insist on their Authority to prescribe them But now this way of stating it does not make the case parallel and therefore he cannot argue by any parity of Reason from one to the other St. Paul exhorts the Christians not to go to law before Heathen Judges because it was scandalous to the Christian Profession to do so and therefore if our Reconciler will make a parallel case he must instance onely in something which is scandalous and then by a parity of reason he may prove that to be forbidden also But neither the Authority to prescribe the decent Rites of Worship nor the prudent exercise of it is scandalous and therefore he cannot prove this to be forbid by any parity of Reason But contentions indeed in the Christian Church whatever be the cause of them are very scandalous and therefore all scandalous contentions are forbid as all scandalous going to law is For we must observe that though the Apostle in the seventh verse tells them There is utterly a fault among you because ye go to law one with another yet he does not absolutely forbid going to law as that signifies using some fair and lawful means of righting our selves when we suffer wrong even from our Christian Brethren but onely as it signifies going to law before the Vnbelievers or Heathen Magistrates for he requires and exhorts them to have their Causes heard and tryed before the Saints that is either the Governours of the Church or any other Christians whom by joynt consent they shall make Judges and Arbitrators among them But to go to law in those days did properly signifie to implead one another before the Heathen Tribunals because there were no other Magistrates at that time who had any legal authority and this going to law was scandalous Thus by a parity of Reason it is onely that contention which is scandalous that can be forbid and therefore for the Governours of the Church to assert their own Authority in ordering the Externals of Religion and for private Christians to defend the Authority of the Church though with some vehemence and earnestness is not scandalous for it is what they ought to do but to contend against the Authority of the Church is a very scandalous contention because it is against the Duty which private Christians owe to their Superiours and therefore whatever Scandal is given by such contentions is wholly owing to the scandalous Contenders that is to the Dissenters who scandalously oppose the Authority and Constitutions of the Church And therefore our Reconciler ought to have reproved the Dissenters and exhorted them to leave off their scandalous contentions not to lay a necessity on the Governors of the Church not to exercise their Authority which these men so scandalously oppose as we find the Apostle in this very place turns the edge of his reproof against those who did the wrong and gave occasion to these scandalous contentions Ye do wrong and defraud and that your brethren Contentions either about the Doctrine Discipline or Worship of the Christian Church are very scandalous but is this a good reason not to contend for the Faith not to oppose Heresies and Schisms because these Disputes represent Christianity as a very uncertain thing and give scandal and offence to Atheists and Infidels then the Orthodox Christians did very ill to meet in such frequent Councils to condemn Arianism and other pestilent Heresies Where there is a Scandal onely on one side and Contention is the onely Scandal this is a good reason against such contentious Disputes but when it is more scandalous to suffer Heresies in the Church to see Ecclesiastical Authority despised to permit any indecencies and disorders different customs and practices in Christian Worship than it is to contend for the Truth and for the Order and Uniformity of publick Worship we must not be afraid to contend for these things the onely scandalous contention being to contend against them His second Argument which he draws out to a great length is taken from 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us that the Apostle grants it is good for a man not to touch a wife